Analysing statements on the Irish border is an exercise in futility

Political scientist Dr Anna Bailey explains the futility of trying to analyse politicians’ statements of intent on the Irish border. The EU is compelled to face both ways at the same time on the border issue. Despite the public displays of camaraderie between the EU and Ireland, it is impossible to know whether the EU will U-turn on the backstop in the final reckoning.

Various European actors have made plenty of headlines with their statements on the Irish border in the past fortnight. So, after careful analysis of their words, what have we learnt? Virtually nothing.

In the present climate it is pretty much impossible to regard as sincere any public pronouncement on Brexit, be it from a representative of the EU institutions, or members of the political establishments of the UK or EU27. Nothing that is said can be assumed to be a genuine statement of intent. Rather, utterances are part of a complex game of bluff and double bluff, intended to try and spook opponents, sway public opinion, or sound out others’ intentions.

The problem is that everyone concerned knows it. And so Brexit reportage has descended into a succession of farcical performances of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Journalists are no doubt well aware that they are being used as propaganda vehicles by all sides, to transmit messages that no one takes at face value. But they have no choice to report them nonetheless, because everyone else is reporting them, and they can’t be the one not to cover today’s headline ‘news’.

The European Commission’s chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas enjoyed a starring role in recent shenanigans, when he got the chance to deliver a provocative line on the Irish border: ‘If you’d like to push me and speculate on what might happen in a no-deal scenario in Ireland, I think it’s pretty obvious – you will have a hard border.’

The anti-Brexit press were quick to jump on these words. ‘No-deal Brexit would mean hard Irish border, EU confirms’, announced the Guardian. ‘Brexit setback for Theresa May as EU confirms it would enforce hard Irish border in event of no-deal’, echoed the Independent. Note the use of the verb ‘confirm’ in both these headlines, as if this were the official announcement of EU policy written in tablets of stone, rather than a clumsy attempt at Project Fear Irish Edition aimed at UK politicians.

Unfortunately for the EU, it is compelled for diplomatic reasons to face both ways at the same time on the Irish border issue. The EU is terrified of being painted as the bad guy that forces Ireland to construct a hard border when the latter has said all along that it won’t. Thus, the next day, Michel Barnier was quick to quash talk of an EU-imposed hard border, stating that in the event of no-deal, ‘we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border.’ He added, ‘my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances.’ Needless to say, a headline ‘EU confirms no-deal would not mean hard Irish border’ was nowhere to be found in the Guardian or the Independent.

Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar took this game of doublespeak to a new level a couple of days later, when he stated that a hard border resulting from no-deal could ‘involve people in uniform… possibly a police presence, or an army presence to back it up’. He was rewarded with the ‘Troops could return to Irish border’ headlines that he was clearly looking for. A few hours later, an Irish government spokesman was dispatched to ‘clarify’ that the Irish would not put troops on the border after all: ‘He [Varadkar] was not referring to Irish personnel and the Irish government has no plans to deploy infrastructure or personnel at the border.’ Which begs the question, which troops was he referring to? UK troops? EU troops?

Further instalments of pointless rhetoric quickly followed. Last week, Donald Tusk, Jean Claude Juncker, Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar all chanted in unison that, ‘The backstop is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for renegotiation.’ This was backed up by a chummy press conference between Tusk and Varadkar this Wednesday together with a joint statement from Juncker and Varadkar, although the PR message of EU-Irish unity was somewhat drowned out by the boys’ inability to resist bolstering their camaraderie with barbed comments about Brexiteers’ “special place in hell”.

Yet this slick choreographed performance is of little help in predicting what the EU will actually do in the final reckoning. No amount of staunch rhetoric can disguise the fact that the EU faces a fundamental conflict: between an invisible Irish border, and securing the borders of its Single Market. In response to the EU chorus of ‘no renegotiation’, the Guido Fawkes website pointed out that a similar EU united front – that of ‘no Greek bailout’ in 2010 – concluded with the EU caving in. And that was despite the fact that bailouts are expressly prohibited by the Maastricht Treaty.

If the EU can breach its own treaties to perform a U-turn, there is every possibility it could U-turn on the backstop. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t – who knows. Most likely the EU’s powerbrokers haven’t even reached agreement among themselves yet. The stakes are so high, the issues so complex, and various actors’ incentives so mixed, that there is bound to be a multiplicity of views behind the scenes. It all depends who eventually prevails.

As 29 March creeps ever closer and the situation remains just as uncertain as ever, there is an understandable temptation to analyse every word uttered by politicians and officials, to try and predict how the Brexit endgame will play out. Unfortunately, these utterances are not intended to inform, but to win a negotiating battle. Far from providing any insight, analysing them is nothing but an exercise in futility.

I will be absolutely amazed if the EU do not agree to remove the backstop between now and 29 March. David Trimble’s assertion that the backstop is illegal under EU law, as well as being incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement will finally kill it off. Add to that the incompatibility with UK law, regarding the Acts of Union, and it is difficult to imagine any other outcome. It would be suicidal to proceed with a Withdrawal Agreement containing the backstop, beyond 29 March. If (and more likely when) it was found to be illegal, the repeal under the Vienna Convention would be spectacularly messy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are pre-moderated, to ensure they comply with our high standards of constructive, informed and civilised discussion. We do not employ full time members of staff, so there may be a delay of several hours before your comment appears. By submitting a comment to our site you agree to comply with our code of conduct. Comments that do not comply may be edited or not published.

Join CIB

Join the UK’s longest-running membership organisation for leaving the EU.

Analysing statements on the Irish border is an exercise in futility

Stay Updated

Get new articles delivered to your inbox

Leave this field empty if you're human:

The Campaign for an Independent Britain is a non-party political campaigning organisation of people from all walks of life who recognize that continuing British membership of the European Union poses grave threats to our liberties, independence, and economic prosperity.

Popular Posts

CIB is the UK’s longest-running membership organisation campaigning for UK independence from the EU. We aim to promote constructive, informed and civilised discussion on all aspects of leaving the EU and the dangers of Euro-federalism. All comments are pre-moderated, to ensure they comply with our community standards. We do not employ full time members of staff, so there may be a delay of several hours before your comment appears. By submitting a comment to our site you agree to comply with the following code of conduct. Comments that do not comply may be edited or not published.

Stay on topic. Comments must be relevant to the topic of the article.

Be respectful. Use moderate, civil and respectful language. Aggressive, offensive or disrespectful language (whether explicit or implied/masked) will not be tolerated.

No spam. Comments containing links to other websites will be deleted as spam. Links to external content directly relevant to the topic of the article may be included, provided the comment includes an explanation as to how it is relevant to the topic of the article.

Political neutrality. CIB is a cross-party organisation: comments should respect this. Moderately-worded criticism of politicians/policies is of course permitted, but should not be partisan in nature.

Be constructive. Any suggestions should be practicable, reasonable and attainable.

Maintain high standards of debate. CIB is a long-standing, widely-respected organisation. Our aim is to promote constructive and informed discussion on Brexit and EU-related issues. If you wish to rant or harangue, please find an alternative website.